| Author | Message | ||
| Question |
----- Original Message ----- From: CFTF@aol.com To: CFTF@aol.com Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 6:59 AM Subject: [seventh-day-adventist] STATE CHURCH FORMED IN USA ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce McMillan To: eternalgospel@att.net Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 4:32 PM Subject: STATE CHURCH FORMED IN USA cc sent as of same date shown below. Further cc may be sent to, as, and when required or requested. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Amnesty International, USA The President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists The Freedom Forum Online (State of the First Amendment) People For the American Way (PFAW) Separation of Church and State InfoBeat News The Federalist Journal World Net Daily BBC News: attention Alistair Cooke, Letter From America Congressman Frank R. Wolf, U.S House of Representatives/Freedom From Religious Persecution Act: International Religious Freedom Act web site Pastor Raphael Perez, Florida, USA Bruce W McMillan >bmcmill@es.co.nz 3/443A Main South Road Hornby Christchurch 8004 NEW ZEALAND 12 May 2000 The President of the United States of America president@whitehouse.gov 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, D.C. 20500 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Mr. President I implore you dear sir to take the time to read this email and carefully consider it's implications. It may in fact yet prove to be the most important message that you have ever received, or will receive while as President of the United States of America - the land of the free - a land made great by her pioneer fathers looking for a promised land having neither 'king nor pope' from which tyranny they were escaping from. This mindset finally producing a truly free country where the dictates of the individual conscience was not proscribed by law. This is enshrined in your Country's Constitution and detailed beyond contention in the U.S. Bill of Rights. I particularly here refer to the First Amendment. viz.:- Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. AMENDMENT I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Mr. President, I wouldn't belittle your intelligence by passing commenton this 'Glorious Amendment' that your forefathers had the God-given foresight to enshrine in law. Its interpretation and meaning is self-evident. Some would say without argue, the single greatest thing that has made your country so great. Are you aware Mr. President that just recently your country for the first time in its entire history established a State Church by Court Order? Apparently instigated by the Roman Catholic Church; the Seventh-day Adventist Church [acting as a front for the RC Church?] is now officially the State Church of the United States of America. AND THAT IS OFFICIAL. Already reports are been heard of people from a variety of ChurchMinistries been threatened by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and/or their representatives with jail etc. if they don't toe the line. And as the Government favored State Church they now have the law on their side to do just that. The Seventh-day Adventist Church was established as the State Church of your country on the 27th of April 2000, by Judge James Lawrence King of the United States District Court of Southern District of Florida. CASE NO. 98-2940-CIV-KING. A full transcript of the Judge's decision may be found at the URL below: http://www.adventist.org/news/specials/perez/districtcourtruling.html Following the end of this email [slightly edited for accomadation] I am enclosing a copy of a statement from the Defendants that very clearly summarizes the situation at hand as it now stands. The URL for same may be found below:- http://www.eternalgospel.com/decision/EGC%20Response.html I notice that their home web page for further cross references may be found at the URL below:- http://www.eternalgospel.com/ The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a catholic (i.e.. international) church. That which is presently taking place in your country will for a certainty quickly follow right around the world. Ignorance is not bliss. Hence 'carbon copies' of this email are been sent and will be sent to various international news reporters so that hopefully the facts and consequences are well known before the 'mid-night knock' inevitably occurs. Even a glancery view will clearly show that the General Conference of>Seventh-day Adventist have by Court of Law Trade Marked their religion binding it up so only those who have their permission may use it. The only religion in the world to ever do so? This I personally find quite amazing especially that the Holy Bible which I assume that they firmly believe in, talks in Revelation Chapter 18 [especially note verses 11 to 13] of traders in the last days buying and selling "slaves, and souls [note the religious conation here] of men." Add to that 2 Timothy 2:9 "...but the word of God is not bound." Both references are from the Douay RC Version. This underhand tactic of course takes away from the individual the right to >believe [or not to believe] and proselytize if the dictates of conscience be in a Seventh-day Adventism mold that doesn't find approval by a hierarchal system that may claim the same or a similar name. Further, as your country has started down this slippery road, it must in all fairness now only approve and allow but only one hierarchal body of Baptists to use that name. All other groups of the Baptist elk outlawed with jail threats if they but dare use the name 'Baptist' in any shape or form. Likewise the Methodists, Roman Catholics, Jews, in fact it would be very difficult to think of any religious group of any sort, that such laws would not apply to. In Conclusion. Mr. President, I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet. But one thing as certain as day follows night, unless the above Court Decision is overthrown forthwith and the First Amendment is re-installed into its rightful place. Innocent Men, women, and children in your country will be very shortly filling your jails. They will be prosecuted, penalized, property confiscated, and finally in all probability, life itself taken. Nero tried this same devilish idea as have others throughout the annuls of this earth's history only to discover that God-fearing men women and children would rather be torn apart by wild beast, entombed in dark and lonely dungeons, flayed, tortured on the rack, burned alive at the stake, beheaded on the block, and endure persecution and deprivation beyond description of whom this world was not worthy (Hebrews 11:35-38), rather than go against their God-given dictates of conscience. So what has been, will be, but let none of us forget that we all have an appointment before a Superior Court with God as the presiding Judge and there will be no appealof His decision. May America conduct herself so God can continue to bless your great country. GOD BLESS AMERICA. Yours faithfully Bruce W McMillan (Author and Freelance Researcher) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Eternal Gospel Church Founded in 1992 by Seventh-day Adventist Believers Not affiliated with the General Gonference of Silver Springs, MD 5419 Southern Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33415 561-688-2150 Pastor Raphael Perez The Shaping of the Ultimate Tyranny God has graciously blessed America as her people have sought to pattern their lives after the standard of righteousness found in God's Word. For God has promised in His Word: "for them that honour me I will honour" (1 Sam. 2:30). The first ten amendments to the Constitution are collectively known asthe Bill of Rights. A "Bill of Rights" is a statement of an individual citizen's 'legal privileges which may not be taken away by a civil government. The First Amendment makes two statements on religion: (1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. (2) Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first statement is called the "establishment clause" while the second is called the "free exercise clause." Many Europeans had come to the shores of North America in search 'of religious freedom and liberty of conscience. The European pattern, from which the Pilgrims and many others fled, was that of a national religion or state church. Accordingly, one church or religion was legally and officially established, and all others were forbidden. The framers of the Bill of Rights had three great purposes in mind: 1. to prevent the establishment of a national religion or state churchor the granting to any church or denomination a preferred legal status, 2. to safeguard the right to freedom of religion and liberty of conscience against invasion by the federal government, and 3. to permit the individual states to deal 'with religious establishments or institutions as they saw fit without federal interference. The first Amendment firmly declares that the federal government may not establish a state church or give legal preference to any church or denomination. Freedom of Worship is our most cherished liberty. Few nations enjoy this coveted freedom. Many American colonists came to the New World specifically to find religious freedom, and many supported the War for Independence to secure this liberty. This basic, fundamental right came about as no accident. Need for Vigilance Since this freedom has not been given to all men, it must be received with thanksgiving and protected with vigilance. Daniel Webster spoke with great wisdom when he said, "God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it." Calvin Coolidge, one of the wisest Presidents, reminds us of the need for vigilance. "The meaning of America is not to be found in a life without toil. Freedom is not only bought with a great price; it is maintained by unremitting effort." We enjoy this freedom because someone made the sacrifice for us to haveit. Many of the freedoms we have today we did not pay for; they were bought by the fortunes and lives of others. Sometimes the vigilance of freedom of worship requires sacrifice, asking one to fight or even die for its virtues. A Diabolical and Evil Plan Vincent Ramik, a Roman Catholic attorney and expert in trademark and patent laws, was hired by the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to do a research on the writings of Ellen G. White. After completing this project he suggested that the General Conference trademark the name Seventh-day Adventist. What would be the purpose of trademarking the name and what would that accomplish? What will always happen when certain aspects of a religious faith are trademarked? If Church leadership enters into a contract with the federal government, then they could prosecute, fine, or imprison those who openly and without permission call themselves "Seventh-day Adventists" or practice the Seventh-day Adventist Faith. Ramik is an expert in his field. He is now using the federal courts to provide law enforcement and protection for the General Conference Corporation. What they have done is anti-biblical, anti-American, and illegal according to our constitution. Congress cannot give preference to one church above another. Congress has never made any such laws. Congress did pass The Lanham Act, which protects words, phrases, names, pictures, symbols, or any combination of these things, which distinguishes the products of one company; usually registered and protected by law. The Lanham Act states "that no person shall, without consent of the registrant, use in commerce any trademark if such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive." What that means to Seventh-day Adventist Christians who are not regular members in good standing with the official (state) church, is simply this: If you're preaching, printing, singing, speaking, or participating in anything that is related to church activities in any way 'that might cause people to think that you are a 'Seventh-day Adventist, then you are in violation of federal trademark laws and you will be dragged into court to face severe fines 'or imprisonment. It is unconstitutional what the Adventist Church leaders have done. Since commercial businesses use trademarks in their names, goods, and services to forbid other corporations and businesses from using them, then, just possibly, what the General Conference could not do; forbid splinter groups from practicing Seventh-day Adventism because of the first amendment of our Constitution, they have now found through a loophole. Under the covering of a business seeking federal trademark protection, the General Conference (religious institution) has trademarked its church, its church name, its goods, and its services and has been taking other churches and splinter groups to court for violating federal laws. Judge James Lawrence King's decision was based on the letter of the commercial laws. All he did was uphold the federal laws that regulate commerce. This is why he refers to church members as "customers" and '"consumers." This is also why he refers to the mission and message of the church as "products," "goods," and, "services." He is using a business (commerce) language with a religious church. Unbelievable!!! Seventh-day Adventism is a religion, not a business. We are Seventh-day Adventist because we believe in Seventh-day Adventism. It is our religious faith. It is how we identify our religious convictions. We have been mandated by our Adventist Prophet, Ellen White, to always identify ourselves with this name for it is a name that God has given to us. All federal laws are underneath the Constitution, The Supreme Law of the Land!!! What has happened? We have now, in our land of freedom, a state church. The court has "ordered" and '"adjudged" that the General Conference has ownership and exclusive right to use said mark in commerce are incontestable." That exclusive right covers: Religious Books, Commentaries, Booklets, Bibles, Religious Observances, Missionary Services, Church Services. . . . . . You can't do this in America! The church can't do that here! That is why people fled Europe and came to the shores of North America in search of religious liberty. If the church wants to employ the strong arm of the federal government (who can make war against them) then let the church go back to Eastern Europe. This is not supposed to happen because the result inevitable. Here is a list of groups which had suits actually started against them by the General Conference. [1]. Word of Faith 'Congregational Seventh-day Church. 3505 Pulaski Pike, Huntsville Alabama 35810. [2]. United Seventh-day Adventist Church. 128 9th Street, N.W., Mason City, IOWA 50401. [3]. The Ten Commandments Universal Saturday Seventh-day Adventist Temple. 1509 Ray Road Apt #301, HyattsviLIe, MD 20782. [4]. Seventh-day Adventist Congregational Church. Kona, Hawaii. [5]. Seventh-day Adventist Kinship international, Inc. PO Box 3840, Los Angeles, CA 90078. [6]. Trinidad Church of Seventh-day Adventist, 1201 Staples Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002. [7]. Tabernacle Seventh-day Adventist Church, 3600 Martin Luther King Blvd. S.E., Mason City, Iowa 50401. [8]. Eternal Gospel Church of Seventh-day Adventist, 5419 Southern Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33415. This matter will be appealed to a higher court. 'May God have mercy on us all in our struggle for religious liberty. | ||
| Question |
The above e-mail was in my box this A.M. I do not claim to understand it. Does anyone here understand it? Did any of you receive it? | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Hi Q, Yes we've been following the case of the General Conference vs. the Eternal Gospel Church of Seventh-day Adventist, 5419 Southern Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33415 for quite some time. I personally think the e-mail was a bit overwrought. And if the Eternal Gospel church appeals, I believe Judge King's decision will be overturned. And I certainly and hoping and praying that the ACLU, with their awesome legal experience and resources, would agree to take this case over on appeal. I don't think the Eternal Gospel church attorney presented a very strong, First-Amendment based case. He was out of his league, quite frankly. Be that as it may, the idea that Seventh-day Adventism is not a faith but a commercial business like Coca Cola or United Air Lines is just ludicrous. That's what floors me. Judge King must have a screw loose somewhere. Jude | ||
| Question |
The e-mail claims the C. Church is tied in some way to the SDA Church. It also claims the SDA Church is tied to the U.S. government. Jude: Can you shed any light on this? | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Q, Answer to Question #1. The SDA church was tied in with the Roman Catholic church for many years in the person of Robert Folkenberg (for one). But there is no reason to think that the demise of his presidency delivered any kind of "mortal wound" to that relationship. Everything has been hushed up. Furthermore, Adventist Today -- the major investigative reporter -- has "gone soft" on Adventism. It's now little more than a shill for the denom and an outlet for "intellectual" apologizing for it. Answer to Question #2. The SDA church is tied in to the U.S. government by way of ADRA. What you thought was largesse of the SDA tithepayers turns out to be the largesse of the USA taxpayers. The SDA church gets the money for ADRA from the U.S. government and administers it to help those less fortunate throughout its globe-girdling missions network. There have been stories (in the LA Times, for one) that some of the ADRA-administered taxpayer money has ended up in SDA hierarchial pockets. I'd like to find out more about this myself, but I have to budget my time. And I see "preaching the gospel" to the Adventist people as vastly more important. Jude | ||
| Allenette |
Jude: (I hate coming out of the woodwork!) SDA is as corrupt as the Mob, but...to condemn Atoday is over the top! yes, I know Coleen WAS once a VIP there, but, for SDA in general, it is definitely the most liberal SDA website there is!!! Hey, they let me post AS AN AGNOSTIC on there! Yeah, I know, I can sorta do the same on here (however misguided I may be, gggggg Over there, I AM allowed to post my heretical views. Except for that, I AGREE w/you 100%. ADRA is a great promo tool for SDA and I'm sure that plenty of ("devout" administrative) people put $$$ in their pockets. I wish I could tell about the Eastern world SDA "investments" (money laundering)that has gone on this last decade BUT I BETTER SHUT UP. Back into the wood work....seems this website is only about praise and worship. Good for you. :-) But there is a whole lot more going on than worrying about getting to heaven. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Hi, Allenette, It's so great to have you back where you belong! Kill the fatted calf! All is forgiven! I notice you didn't say I WAS WRONG about Adventist Today, only implied that I condemned it. [I was talking, incidentally, only about the Adventist Today Magazine (ATM), not the Adventist Today Website (ATW), which is a lot looser.] Do you think that since Colleen AND OTHERS have stopped writing for ATM, and since John McLarty has taken over the editorship, that it has maintained its integrity? I don't. I've been wanting to do a review of McLarty's utter-trash article on the investigative judgment doctrine, but I havn't found the time. Trust me, it was a whitewash and a sell-out-down-the-river-of-no-return of unmentionable proportions if ever the one there was, signalling the end of the "journalism of integrity" that the previous leadership, staff and stable of writers had worked so hard to build up. Still missin' ya, Jude | ||
| Allenette |
Well, ok, one more then I gotta disappear for awhile :^) 1) I only found out about aToday while helping my dear sweet SDA mom find out about the Folkenberg fiasco--she sure wasnt going to find out about it in church!-- and I didnt even know who he was til then. I only found out about it when I stumbled onto the SDAnet website. Hey, I really really really WAS out of the loop SDA-wise, and happily so. 2) the as you describe it--looseness---"over there" still occasionally astounds me! And, I'm talking about the discussion forum, I have no idea what the mag dishes out, and frankly, dont care. I've only been bleeped there once ;-) no, twice ;-) 3)If I'm defending it, and I guess I am, it is because it is a breath of fresh air (AS IS FAF !!) considering the stifling get me outa here claustrobic atmosphere that I experienced growing up SDA. I picture (and occasional emails back me up) lurkers who read our heresies and maybe, just maybe, a thought gets fixed in their brains that they hadnt considered before....the 1st "light dawns on Marblehead" that may lead them out of that mindset. On the other hand, maybe not, since everyone who visits the site at least has a computer and I would assume, is at least minimally curious about things. It would be interesting to know how many of the "faithful" are wired, wouldnt it? In the U.S., prob a fair number but overall SDA membership (most of it being in 3rd world countries....hmm how did THAT happen?) prob not a very high percentage. Gotta hit the hay. Just returned from the new "Mission:Impossible 2" movie ON A FRIDAY NIGHT!!! This movie critic gives it 2 stars...wait for the video. Back into the woodwork I think :-) | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Allenette, Before you go, let me paraphrase Jesus speaking to the set-mind SDA set, "The atheists and agnostics will go into the kingdom of heaven ahead of you." As far as who we're reaching is concerned, I don't think there is much chance of reaching the SDA over 40 who isn't jolted by some life-altering event -- such as divorce, career derailment, life-threatening illness (heart event, cancer). But there are probably enough of those to make the venture worthwhile. Others who might be reached: the under 35 questioner bunch and college kids. Also a percentage of "evangelical SDAs" who keep swinging further and further out in reaction against legalism pharisaism and sadduseanism (sadducism?). Not that you care, Allenette. Doesn't matter, since God's in control and he's driving me to do this -- it's like I can't stop, like I get new energy for it every morning like the dew, like "the kingdom of heaven is 'busting out all over.'" Or was that June from Rogers and Hammerstein's Oklahoma!? Do you want some lemmon oil to cover your tracks as you disappear back into the woodwork? Pretty fine hard white canyon oak wainscoting you've got there. Cheers! Jude | ||
| Allenette |
well, its cheapo fake white canyon oak wainscoting thin paneling that covers sheetrock if you MUST know! :-) Maybe if my late most sincere SDA pastor dad hadnt been so convinced that his family wouldnt need some sort of $$$ family inheritance since we wouldnt be on this planet much longer, and hadnt given so much of his preacher's income $$$ to advance the "good ole" Adventist message, (which amounts at least to union dues, in real world terms...he'd have lost his job if he hadnt paid kickbacks into the conf! its still like that in case anyone's wondering) I'd be disappearing into some quality woodwork. ggggg When I say I dont care what SDA is pushing these days, I mean,its all just promotion and propaganda with that organization...not that I dont care about people, for goodness sake. Jude, you nearly painted me as the grinch with that dig. I'm not like that; I just realize that reading the Bible (or any book) is open to interpretation, and I just dont see any reason to spread my particular review of it around as "truth". My only conclusion, is that I can NEVER "KNOW" absolute truth as a human, and I just do not trust a book that has spawned so many belief systems, none of which can be proved, and all or most arguments are backed up with favorite texts which are also selectively chosen, and if this website was ecumenical, the diverse "inspiring" interpretational posts would be mind-boggling. :-) But have fun. Your attitudes if carried over in to real life, are a whole lot better than the general public I see out there on a daily basis :-) | ||
| Colleentinker |
Hi, Allenette! Good to hear from you. I told my ninth-graders a while back that love is the most powerful force in the universe. Hate, angeróall those energy-intensive emotionsóare powerful, put they're not as powerful as love. Hate and anger and greed can wreak destruction of massive proportions, but only love can initiate and actually succeed in repairing the damage. Only love can change people. Hate, greed, selfishnessóthese are opportunists and misuse anything in their path. They twist truth to gain control and power. Unspeakable crimes and devious deceptions have been perpetrated in the name of the Bible. The Bible, however, can't be blamed for these atrocities any more than democracy can be blamed for massive Government cover-ups. (We watched All The President's Men last night with our 17-year-old who's doing a history report on Watergate.) We all stand before God with our souls naked to his gaze. We all have to answer the question, were we willing to know truth? Were we willing to choose Love over power and control and in spite of the unspeakable abuses we have witnessed? I hear that you do pursue truth, Allenette. Accepting love is the last step to allowing truth to bring freedom. Again, it's great to hear from you! Colleen | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Allenette, I'm knocking on wood to summon you from your secure place deep within the woodwork. Whether of knotty or naughty pine, it doesn't matter. Just to tell you the one thing you still lack: a knowledge of God. The reason you don't know him is not that his existence has never been proven. And it hasn't. Nor can it be. For if it could, there would be no room for faith. For God can be known only through experience. You cannot know God if you don't meet God. And you can never meet God if you do not encounter him. Moses encountered God at the burning bush. Adam and Eve encountered him in the Garden of Eden. John and the other disciples encountered him in the person of Jesus Christ. But he has gone to heaven above now, and the Holy Spirit -- who "took his place," in an inadequate way of speaking -- is too much like the wind: You can see its effects, but not the wind inself. But if you were to encounter him, you would make a shocking discovery: God is love. God loved you before you were born, loved you into existence, so to speak. And he's been loving you ever since by looking out for your best welfare. And so I recommend him to you and invite you to: Encounter God! With blessings, Jude | ||
| Allenette |
Thanks Jude, but its still circular logic:-) Encounter Superman! (Just read the books and BELIEVE!) speaking from behin' the naughty pine :-) Lois Lane :-) | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Allenette, Yeah, but: 1. We know that Superman is a form of deity created by man in his own (idealized) image. We don't know the origin of God and, having heard from him on the point, assert that there is none. 2. Believing isn't the same as encountering. Encounter precedes belief. You don't find (encounter) God. He finds (encounters) you. When God encounters you, you'll know and you'll believe that the encounter happened. Blessings always and peace to you, Jude | ||
| Allenette |
:-) I give up---> now the circular logic is pre-qualified as well as subjective. Meant friendly but I gotta go. Got a meeting with someone named Clark Kent who said he had some GOOD NEWS for me (he found me) I'm not sure I believe him tho. I MAY ask for some proof ;-) Lois Lane | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Whew, Lois! For a moment there I thought maybe you said KEN CLARK! Now THERE'S a foe against which kriptonite is but baby's red-and-white peppermint stick candy. -Jude | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Meant to add: Have a wonderful time, still wishing you were here where you'll always be welcome! We'll even leave the light on for ya even brighter than Tom Bodet's. -Jude | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Allenette, maybe it's time to ask you two questions and to make one observation of agreement with you. Question 1. Consider this sequence: You (1) encounter God, (2) believe in the spiritual reality of the encountering God, (3) submit to the sovereignty of the encountering God, (4) accept the grace offered by the encountering God, and (5) express your faith in the encountering God to others. How is it circular? It's clearly LINEAR! Question 2. How is the encountering experience pre-qualified? Who but God can pre-qualify anything or anyone? Observation of agreement: Yes, the "experience" of encountering God (ultimate spiritual reality) is indeed SUBJECTIVE. Also MYSTERIOUS. But it is not hostile to objective or scientific material reality. In other words, it's not a "ufo" or "area 51" type of experience against which no contrary scientific evidence is admisable. In other words, yes, the experience is self-validating. That I will grant you. It's a starting point. But that does not mean it is circular. Many people ("scientific objectivists" or "logical positifists," but you can call them "modernists," beginning with Rene Descartes ["I think, therefore I am"]) take this stance: Prove scientifically that God exists and I'll believe. God chooses not to take them up on their offer, for to do so would be to make faith impossible. And God values only faith. I believe that someday, Allenette God will encounter you in a way that will rattle every atom in your body -- and although you may become frightened out of your wits, the encountering will be ultimately an experience of sheer divine love. Just my thoughts about you, Jude | ||
| Allenette |
Nah, too many charismatics throw that stuff around (and themselves onto the ground, too ggg) one of my employees (Nazarene)tells me that he thinks God says,"Who said that? I didnt say that?" regarding the many interpretations that float around God's qualities and personality. Which is one reason that I tend toward the man created God in man's image, ala Superman (not an original thought, I realize) A problem I have with that, is regarding faith. If the generic Christian God is so much like our parents, well, I dont make my children GUESS and suppose that I love them, on FAITH. I dont write them obscure letters about it, I TELL THEM. I dont require faith that it is so, I SHOW THEM. I dont make it a mystery game "if I accept mommies love and recognize her sacrifices I'm ok". BTW, I know what your reply will be and it wont be for ME, per se, but the lurkers. That's ok, you cant tell me anything I havent heard a zillion times, one way or another. I dont chose to play the game. If my parent treated me that way,and I said, cut the crap, a loving parent would say, "yeah you're right. ok, I just like playing games. You big lug, I luv ya., no strings attached" This God that so many worship, has a zillion times a zillion instances daily in which to make his presence known. And it never happens, unless something NICE happens which the believers Pavlovianly pin on him/her/IT. Heye, even Zeus used to show up every now and then, to let people know he was still around :-) One might be tempted to say that the current God who is "in charge" of our part of the universe, is busy elsewhere? Since no one's had VERIFIABLE contact with him in AGES? Curiously, I have NO PROBLEM with accepting a higher being in the universe, just dont see a reason to project EVERY wonderful thing imaginable on his/her/ITS awareness or whatever. Check out the OT of the book everyone seems to love...every now and then humans gave their God a reason to change his/her/ITS mind. (Sodom and Gomorrah) That is infantile, sorry...as I said months ago, a shrink would have a field day with that reasoning (and they do when they can do it and be politically correct and ndot fear getting sued by the patient) In that area I am probably philosophically closer to mathematicians Bertrand Russell or Boehm, (pantheistic) altho I am more comfortable with agnosticism for the past 30 years. :-) As far as God frightening me out of what wits I seem to possess, in convinceing me of his/her/ITS existence, (which a loving parent would not do)it was a lot scarier to do a Huck Finn as a kid, and accept being damned rather than being so gullible, religion-wise :-) Lois :-) | ||
| Bette |
Hi Family of Choice: I, too, like Allenette was raised by a "SDA church first" father. He is still that way and when I saw him today, that was the first thing he talked about. It used to hurt me because it seemed he loved and cared about it more than me, but now I see him as a lonely old man of 80. I don't visit him; my sister (his favorite) lives in Texas so she doesn't see him; my youngest sister is gone; his 2 grandchildren don't really know him so they don't visit; and Dove my granddaughter talks to him only when she is here and we call him. He doesn't even see her - his only great grandchild - and he lives less than 30 minutes from her! It's sad that he can't recognize that God, our Heavenly Father, loves us unconditionally (even when we don't want it) and He gave us parents to see and be the physical body of His love on earth. Why would He include "Honor thy father and thy mother" if He didn't mean for our earthly parents to be close to their children? In the 12 step programs (AA, NA, GA, OA, etc) one is taught to believe in a Higher Power. No name is put to that Power, but it is recognized that there has to be something/someone to believe in to make life better. Call it what you will, but know that if you don't believe - - in something - - even Superman - - your life will not be as full and happy as it can be! Yes, Allenette, I tell my daughter and grand- daughter I love them. They don't have to guess because THEY KNOW. . . but most of us PK's were never sure . . . and time has not changed that. They are still the same as they were, still believe the same as they did, but we have changed and this, I believe, is why I fellowship here at FAF and I thank God that I stumbled upon this website when I was searching for answers to my doubts about the religion I was raised in. God bless us each one is my daily prayer. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Hi Lois, Lots of interesting stuff. The kind of encounter I'm talking about is not pro, but anti-charismatic. For charismatics the proof of encounter is in the external expression. But in the kind of encounter I'm talking about no external manifestation has any value as proof. The inner experience may or may not manifest in an outer expression, but the outer expression is essentially irrelevant. Charismatics reify or objectify the Holy Spirit in a way that I believe demeans God AND human. Finally, and most importantly, charismatics put the outward expression AFTER a literal baptism. There is a two-step process: believe and THEN receive. This is anti-scriptural. Scripture says you receive the Holy Spirit instantly with the experience of God. I agree with what your Nazarene employee says about interpretations of God. There is no generic Christian God. About 99.9999999999999% of everything we know about God we know exclusively from Jesus Christ. And God Jesus didn't and doesn't do what you said, such as making us guess whether he loves us. Jesus wrote no obscure letters. As God he lived and loved. Any obscure letters were the OT "bits and pieces" or "many and various ways" referred to in Hebrews 1:1. You don't think that the gospels are obscure, do you? And God does indeed say, "I luv ya., no strings attached." That is the precise meaning of the Greek word agape. You wrote, "This God that so many worship, has a zillion times a zillion instances daily in which to make his presence known." Yes, and he makes his presence known in each and every one. But you can't see it without "eyes" or hear it without "ears." I agree with your criticism of Pavlovian Christians. You wrote, "One might be tempted to say that the current God who is 'in charge' of our part of the universe, is busy elsewhere? Since no one's had VERIFIABLE contact with him in AGES?" God cannot be verified even as he cannot be mocked. About not having a problem "with accepting a higher being in the universe," you're in pretty intelligent company, since surveys have shown that that's what most theoretical scientists also believe. Einstein even wrote once that people had to give up their concept of a personal God in favor of an impersonal one. The Sodom and Gomorrah story is only infantile if one's view of God is infantile. Remember the "bits and pieces" of Hebrews 1:1. I have great respect for mathematician Bertrand Russell. I know very little about Boehm, but I'll check his thinking out. I'm comfortable with you being "comfortable with agnosticism for the past 30 years." It is, after all, God's will. As far as I can tell, God wouldn't frighten you out of your wits in order to convince you of his existence. I don't think he would do that for any reason except the one he reveals to you at the time of the experience. Peace, Lois, Jude :) | ||
| Plain Patti |
Allenette, I am very much in agreement with what you say. one of my employees (Nazarene)tells me that he thinks God says,"Who said that? I didnt say that?" regarding the many interpretations that float around God's qualities and personality. Which is one reason that I tend toward the man created God in man's image, ala Superman (not an original thought, I realize) I agree with you totally. I think that man has no clue Who God is, and the best finite man can do is to think of Him in human terms. A problem I have with that, is regarding faith. If the generic Christian God is so much like our parents, well, I dont make my children GUESS and suppose that I love them, on FAITH. I dont write them obscure letters about it, I TELL THEM. I dont require faith that it is so, I SHOW THEM. I dont make it a mystery game "if I accept mommies love and recognize her sacrifices I'm ok". Again, I agree with what you are saying. But that is because I understand "where you are coming from." You have been raised, as have most American Christians, with a "Santa Claus" view of God and of Jesus. That is, if you believe and if you are very good, you will be rewarded. As if our faith and behavior can actually pull God's strings and make Him act. This is just the flip side of the hellfire and brimstone of our early Puritan founders. It is the notion that our actions somehow control God. For the Puritans, there was an emphasis on the absolute righteousness of God to the virtual exclusion of His love and mercy, so it was their strict compliance to all "His" demands that led to the avoidance of His wrath; in the softer--and I do not mean that as a positive necessarily--world of today, emphasis is placed on God's love and mercy, to the virtual exclusion of His absolute righteousness, and we can control God because of His great "love" (the Santa Claus syndrome) for mankind. Christendom has falsely advertised and sold a bill of goods to its customers. It has tried to, since the days of the Puritans, make people believe that we, by our actions, control the actions of God. Do you know how truly insignificant we are? How miniscule on this planet this very day, not to mention in thousands of years of human history? I cannot buy into the theory that we pull God's strings by our faith, our prayers, our actions, and He is just sitting there waiting for us to act so that He can jump into action. Even if He were, what could we possibly do that would be "good enough" to get His attention? We are worms under His feet, microbes in His vast ocean. So why does Christendom get by with selling the idea that we can control God by our actions? Because of the ego of man. We want to feel like we have some control over our destiny; we want to feel like we are "earning" our reward, that we are indeed important, not only to God, but to the history of this world. And Christendom has played upon our ego to keep us focused upon our weak, helpless, little selves. As long as we focus upon ourselves, we will have a hook of guilt in our mouths by which we can be controlled. Because, deep down inside, everyone knows that (s)he is unworthy of any attention from the God of the universe. Please don't stop reading at this point. I am neither atheistic nor agnostic. But I think that Christendom promotes both of these by their setting up of false hopes and expectations. And the SDA church especially. The SDA church promises not only that God will act whenever you pull His string, but it also avows that SDAs are the only people on earth worthy of pulling the string. Not only that, someday they will not have to "pull the string"; they will be so perfect that they will be able to live without God and Jesus. So where does someone go when they realize that they are either not pulling the string right, that God is not responding to the tug on the end of the string, or the whole idea is a bunch of hooey in the first place? I maintain there are only 3 places to go: 1. into the oblivion known as agnosticism, or 2. into another community that claims to be able to pull God's strings better, or 2. to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I have been in the first place. It was very scary for me, going from knowing everything to knowing nothing one has to doubt everything, from the existence of God, the validity of morals, the meaning of our day to day existence, etc. Fortunately, I had children. They kept my immediate life in check, as I could not go off the deep end knowing that I was affecting their psyches for the rest of their lives. I also had a support system--some relatives that I could use as a sounding board. It took me about 3 years to completely expunge the SDA guilt from my mind. Even afterwards, I would occasionally have flashbacks, but they eventually died completely. The second choice, of course, is just the "frying pan to the fire" scenario. I used to wonder when I was SDA how someone could leave the "truth" and go to the Mormons, or some other cult. Now I see that it is not a very large step at all; in fact, it is a most logical step. A certain personality who must feel "righter" than the rest of the world, would naturally seek out an organization with "the truth" when disillusioned with "God's true remnant." (It is rather like the "Amway" scenario, and other "get rich without much effort." I have seen the same personality types that go from one "true church" to another "true church" also go from one "get rich" scheme to another. And each time they speak of their current venture with reverence, as if this time they have truly found the "truth.") It is very interesting, but in my (rather limited) experience, I have rarely seen anyone go from the SDA church to a mainstream church such as Methodist, Presbyterian, or Episcopalian. And usually, this is a last resort, after they have exhausted all of the "true churches" out there. The third reason, leaving for the Gospel, is the only viable reason to leave, and, for me, it is the answer to your questions about the love of God and mine about "pulling God's strings. You are very right, so much is made about the love of God and taking Christ as your personal Savior, that I believe Christianity has vanquished many educated people and great thinkers. Because they can see through the hype, and they find no substance. Christendom offers the believer "a change of heart," "a new life," and those who are honest with themselves can take a good look at themselves and those around them and realize that these folks are just the same as they were before. If there is a period of ecstacy, of revival, if you will, it is like the honeymoon experience, and it wears off. I can remember thinking, as a child, looking forward to evangelistic series (I loved them! We finally got to sing more than 2 hymns at a sitting!) hoping that THIS would be the time that it would "take"; that I would finally find "the answer," and I would be a changed person forever. You know what? It never happened. But I did not give up hope. After all, probation had not closed yet; there was still time for me to "get ready." I did not give up hope because I was not as realistic as many of my peers (and siblings) were. If I had been, I would have given up much sooner, because it is a bill of goods that Christianity sells that when we believe in Him, when we repent and confess, when we express remorse for our sins and ask Christ to come into our hearts, our lives will be changed! We will be victorious over all those little unpleasant sins that plague us. Then I heard the Gospel. A message that had been there, right in front of my eyes, for all of my SDA years, but I never saw it. I had been quoting John 3:16, but had never realized what it said: God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. For me, as an SDA, "believing" meant, well, you know what it meant: not eating pork, keeping the sabbath, not eating black pepper or drinking tea, not dancing, wearing clear lip gloss instead of lip stick, not smoking or drinking, not drinking water with meals, etc, ad nauseum. But then, thanks to a wonderful pastor, the concept of grace was made known to me. The idea that God accepts sinful people--that was me, for sure, err.. still is--because of His Son Jesus Christ! This God that so many worship, has a zillion times a zillion instances daily in which to make his presence known. And it never happens, unless something NICE happens which the believers Pavlovianly pin on him/her/IT. Heye, even Zeus used to show up every now and then, to let people know he was still around :-) One might be tempted to say that the current God who is "in charge" of our part of the universe, is busy elsewhere? Since no one's had VERIFIABLE contact with him in AGES? This is where your argument is answered, Allenette. The love of God to mankind may or may not be seen in every day living. We may or may not recognize God's hand in our lives. There was a point in time in which I was totally convinced that God created us, saved us, and has left us on our own to live our human lives as best as we can. I am not very far from that belief right now, but I am not discouraged in God nor do I believe less in His love for us. Because He has made the greatest display of His love for mankind in the doing and dying of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Listen to what I am saying here: If God does personally no more for each of us than He has done in Jesus Christ, He has fully displayed His great love for us individually, and the world corporately, in His awesome act of salvation in Jesus Christ. Christendom in general and SDAism in specific, has not appreciated the magnitude of this act of love and mercy. They do not believe it was totally sufficient for the salvation of the entire world; they keep looking for some "greater thing" to happen in the believer. And thus they keep people focused on themselves, their sinfulness, and their guilt, because no one in his right mind would ever claim that they had conquered sin in his life. Yet, Christianity keeps dangling the carrot of "sanctification" in front of the noses of its dumbly accepting clientele, keeping them motivated by guilt, keeping the money pouring in. The love of God was so brilliantly displayed at the cross that we have no need of any other revelation of divine love. Jesus Christ, God Himself, became human, lived on this earth like the rest of us microbes, fulfilled the law perfectly in our behalf (since we are incapable) and died the second death for us, the death of eternal separation from God, the death that should rightfully be ours. In these last days, God has spoken to us by His Son. And those words are so powerful that they need to qualifying nor do they need validifying by our pathetic response to His grace. Don't you see, Allenette, Jesus Christ did everything for us! He freed us up from the burden of having to try and save ourselves. God may or may not intervene in our everyday lives, but this much we can know for a certainty: He has provided us with a complete salvation. We may not or may not "feel" His presence; we may or may not think that He is listening to our every prayer, but we can know that our eternal destiny has been secured. Just what are the implications of this? We are free to live as creatures, as children of God. We do not have to save ourselves; God has saved us. We can relax and be ourselves, knowing that at the end of this life, there is another glorious life awaiting us. That is the glory of the Gospel. Jesus Christ frees us from the burden of trying to "do it all" or to scrutinize our lives constantly to evaluate our "Christian growth." We can live as children of our heavenly Father, just as your children can live as children, depending upon your love and care. You have a good mind. Don't stop asking questions, because I know you will never be satisfied with "pat" answers. Grace and peace, Patti | ||
| Maryann |
Hi All of Above, This conversation really opened up to me what happened to Mom! My "attention span" in very short, to many drugs still :-( So I wont try to pull up any of your wonderful excerpts. When Mom left the SDA Church in about '80, she bounced around in the "Aging Christian Ocean" for about 17 years. When the name it claim it, grab God by the throat, control God by what I do "Word Faith Island" showed up in her horizon, she franticly paddled to it's shore! Why did this, "Word Faith Island" seem so homey and familiar to her? I've never really fully understood why this happened till I read the above Post's. Why did she just float on by the many, many "Gospel Islands" without so much as a glance back? Wake up guys, come on, "Word Faith Island" was just sooo FAMILIAR! :-( SDAs are just as guilty if not MORE guilty as the rest of the "puppet string pullers"! Not only that, we had nearly 100 books that taught us the art of pulling the strings that controlled the puppet we called "God"! Wow, what a revelation to me! I'm suddenly beginning to lose the feeling of responsibility for Mom being back in SDAism. That there, is something to really praise God about! It's like I lost a millstone from around my neck this morning :-) Thank you so much Allenette for stirring this one up ;-) Also, when we were so "aware" that our string pulling "controlled" God, it was only natural to have that concept spill over into our personal lives and control others! We were SOOO controlled by our parents to make sure the right strings were pulled that it is just natural for us, ALSO, to control rather that teach and lead our OWN kids! And to try to control our spouses and friends? No wonder our heads are/were sooo un-screwed;-) I gotta go rest, Maryann | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Maryann, You wrote, "I'm suddenly beginning to lose the feeling of responsibility for Mom being back in SDAism." I didn't know! What a burden to carry! | ||
| Maryann |
Hey Jude, Thanks for the response:-) Where I was coming from on the "responsibility" for Mom was: When I was able to FINALLY show her that there were some really serious problems with the "word faith" gOSPEL, I didn't have enough knowledge to feed her the true Gospel. Besides that, I left town for the 10 days in which she went back to SDAism!:-( I had a basic 1st grade knowledge, but was still totally un-able to present it to her. (Actually, she may not have been able to accept it even if I had?) Then, LOOK at the road I have been able to come down in a search for her "CURE". You know the story. Isn't it just wonderful?! Upward and onward....Maryann | ||
| Allenette |
I think **I** was the obscure one on my last (tho verbiose)post as I wasnt referring to MY parents, in the least. Sorry guys. Let me regroup and rephrase. That post of mine WASNT a vent at my SDA parents. I'll try again in a few days...but if it helped somebody hey, what the hey. ;-) My parents didnt act that way. They were/are very loving and I always knew I was loved and taken care of. I'm sorry my post was taken that way as it wasnt referring to them in the least. Nobody's perfect but they were not cruel. (just SDA ggg) | ||
| Plain Patti |
Allenette, I didn't for a moment think you were speaking of your parents. I thought I understood what you were saying.... maybe I didn't.... Anyway, I tried. (Aren't there Brownie points for trying???) Patti | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Knock, knock, Allenette! Just a few taps on the "naughty pine!" Reason: I wante to clear up bit of a misunderstanding between us. In one of your last posts here you wrote, "I don't make it a mystery game. "If I accept mommie's love and recognize her sacrifices I'm ok." BTW, I know what your reply will be and it won't be for ME, per se, but the lurkers." You know, Allenette, that isn't so! Lurkers schmerkers! My posts to you have always been to you and you alone. I've always enjoyed your posts and reposts. I think you're intelligent, witty and funny -- with no mean streak visible anywhere. And there are some who've posted here who wear "Christianity U" on the front of their sweatshirts and "Mean Streaker" on the back. Just wanted you to know that. Cheers, my friend, Jude |
